[2025:RJ-JP:10920] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 133/2024 Kishor Kumar Sindhi S/o Shankarlal, R/o 176, Basant Vihar Colony, Gopalpura Mod, Tonk Road, Jaipur, ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ramnarayan S/o Shri Gullaram, R/o Village Kalyanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur 2. Ramesh S/o Shri Mohru, R/o Village Kalyanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur 3. Rakesh S/o Shri Babulal Grand S/o Shri Mewaram, R/o Village Kalyanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur 4. Bandhu Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Through Its President Chajulal Meena Address 17 Azad Nagar, Behind Choudhary Petrol Pump, Tonk Road, Sanganer, Jaipur, ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 134/2024 Akshay Kishor S/o Kishor Kumar Sindhi, R/o 176, Basant Vihar Colony, Gopalpura Mod, Tonk Road, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ramnarayan S/o Shri Gullaram, R/o Village Kalyanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 2. Ramesh S/o Shri Mohru, R/o Village Kalyanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 3. Rakesh S/o Shri Babulal Grand Son Of Shri Mewaram, R/o Village Kalyanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 4. Kishor Kumar Sindhi S/o Shankarlal, R/o 176 Basant Vihar Colony, Gopalpura Mod, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 5. Bandhu Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Through Its President Chajulal Meena Address 17 Azad Nagar, Behind Choudhary Petrol Pump, Tonk Road, Sanganer, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:10920] (2 of 7) [CR-133/2024] ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kshtij Mittal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khem Singh Rajawat Mr. Prahlad Sharma Mr. Ram Prasad Sharma Mr. Lakhan Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 06/03/2025 1. These two revision petitions were preferred aggrieved from orders dated 05.02.2024s and 15.02.2024 in civil suit no. 34/2024 after dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which was filed by different petitioner(s) as defendant no.1 and defendant no.3. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners while referring the provision under Section 207 and 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act submits that the plaintiffs have filed civil suit with respect to an agricultural land, before a civil court and same is not maintainable. He further submits that as per judgment in case of Pyare Lal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania Online (2019) 3 SCC 692, a suit filed with respect to agricultural land is not maintainable before the civil court. He also submits that a suit for permanent injunction can be filed before the revenue court and same is a competent court to decide the dispute between the parties. He also referred judgment in case of Lal Jhala Vs. Panna Lal (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1644/2012) and Hastimal and Ors. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi and Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 84/2017) and [2025:RJ-JP:10920] (3 of 7) [CR-133/2024] submitted that unless land is converted, a civil suit is not maintainable before the civil court. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent(s) plaintiff and submitted that plaintiff has filed a suit with respect to a developed residential colony for which the proceeding under Section 90-A was already held by the authority. He submits that the status of land is not an agricultural land rather the plaintiffs have prayed injunction on a piece of land admeasuring 240 square yard, which was not sold to the developer. He also submits that the land in question is a residential land, therefore, a suit is maintainable only before the civil court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments as referred by learned counsel for petitioner. 5. In case of Pyare Lal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the scope and ambit of the provision contained in Section 256 and 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act has observed that where there is a tenancy and pending revenue suit for declaration of khatedari right then a civil suit for declaration of khatedari right is not maintainable before a civil court. The facts in case of Pyare Lal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (supra), clearly indicate that a suit for declaration in respect to gift deed involving property for which a proceeding for declaration of khatedari right was pending before the revenue court was subject matter, and same is not maintainable in view of Section 207 abd 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. [2025:RJ-JP:10920] (4 of 7) [CR-133/2024] 6. In case of Lal Singh Jhala (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 and Order VII Rule 10 of CPC wherein a suit for permanent injunction was filed with respect to an agricultural land, which was used for commercial purpose, and after considering the provision of Section 207 of CPC, the plaint was returned for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. 7. A similar view was adopted by same Co-ordinate Bench in case of Hasti Mal Vs. Pushpa (supra), after placing reliance upon case of Lal Singh Jhala (supra). Learned counsel for petitoner has stressed that since land is an agricultural nature, so present suit is not maintainable. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by limitation, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted. 9. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court has further opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and [2025:RJ-JP:10920] (5 of 7) [CR-133/2024] bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the Courts. The power of the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII, Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule 11, the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detailed facts as provided under the written statement or even in the application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint. 11. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected, if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious has an illusory cause of action and is barred by law. 12. In case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. 2021 SCC Online (SC) 802, while placing reliance upon judgments in case of Balwant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Comissioner (2007) 6 SCC 186 and several other reiterated that mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. This court cannot decide nature of land on basis of mutation record is [2025:RJ-JP:10920] (6 of 7) [CR-133/2024] considered, while deciding the issue. As per statement of learned counsel for respondents plaintiffs, the land has been convered to Abadi after 90-A proceedings. 13. A bare perusal of the plaint clearly indicates that initially the plaintiffs have mentioned about khasra no and also entry in revenue record. A perusal of the entire plaint indicates that subsequent events were also mentioned by plaintiffs which means that subsequently this land was developed as residential and the dispute pertains to only 240 square yard of land. The plaintiffs have not filed any case for relief of declaration of khatedari rights. Similarly, they have not filed any suit before the revenue court. The right relating to agricultural land is not in dispute. The petitioner has moved an application on the ground that the land in question was developed as residential land and after plotting the petitioner defendant has purchased a residential plot. 14. Herein the case of petitioner is for a residential plot and there is no dispute with regard to the statement that an agricultural land was later developed as residential colony and the defence of petitioner is that he was one of the plot holder in the residential scheme, developred on agricultural land. 15. Looking to the subject matter as considered by learned trial court and also the fact that the land is not an agricultural land rather an introductory reference was made about the revenue record. Thus, mere mentioning of revenue record, is not sufficient to exclude the jurisdiction of civil court. It is a settled legal position that revenue record is fiscal entry and nothing more than a fiscal entry. [2025:RJ-JP:10920] (7 of 7) [CR-133/2024] 16. In view of subject matter and also the relief as claimed, a civil suit is maintainable before the trial court and the trial court has not committed any error while dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 17. As a result, both the revision petitions nos. 133/2024 and 134/2024 are hereby dismissed. 18. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J Chetna/109-110